INDUBEN ALIAS DHANBAI Vs. SAIYED MAHMAD JIYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revision application by the tenants-in-common against whom a decree in ejectment has been passed under Section 13 (1) (e) of the Bombay Rents Hotels and Lodging House Rates Control Act 1947 (hereinafter called the Act). A few facts may be stated for the disposal of this revision application.

(2.) The premises in question were taken on lease by one Hiraji Gustabji under a lease deed dated 21st August 1951 Exhibit 98. That lease deed inter alia provided that the premises shall not be sub-let or transferred by the lessee to a third party. On 12th October 1963 the tenant Hiraji was served with a notice Exhibit 157 terminating the tenancy in respect of the demised premises. Soon after the issuance of that notice Hiraji expired on 16th October 1963 The legal representatives of the deceased sent a reply to the notice on 20th November 1963 Exhibit 100. It appears that thereafter the widow of the deceased Ratanbai entered into an agreement Exhibit 139 with the partners of Anupam Automobiles whereunder the latter where permitted to use the premises in question for the purpose of running a garage on the terms and conditions set out therein. On the landlord coming to know about the same he sewed Ratanbai and her daughter Indu alias Dhanbai with a notice Exhibit 103 dated 16th August 1967. A reply to the said notice was sent on 12th September 1967 Exhibit 108 claiming direct contractual tenancy. Since the possession of the premises was not delivered as per the notice Exhibit 103 the landlord instituted H.R.P. Suit M. 891 of 1968 in the Court of Small Causes at Ahmedabad claiming possession of the demised premises from all the legal heirs and representatives of deceased Hiraji Gustabji Baria. In that suit Anupam Automobiles the transferee or sub-tenant was impleaded as a co-defendant Ratanbai and Induben who were defendants 1A and 1B contested the suit by their written statement Exhibit 25. Defendant Anupam Automobiles adopted the written statement of Ratanbai by Purshis Exhibit 26. The other defendants filed two separate written statements Exhibits 36 and 59 wherein they denied the allegation that the premises were unlawfully transferred to Anupam Automobiles. Defendants Ratanbai and her daughter Induben also denied the allegation that the suit premises had been sub-let or transferred or assigned to Anupam Automobiles with a view to profiteering. The learned trial Judge raised issues at Exhibit 90 and on the question of sub-letting argument or transfer he held in favour of the landlord and against the tenants He also came to the conclusion that the landlord did not require the suit premises reasonably and bonafide for personal occupation. Accordingly he passed a decree for eviction under Section 13 (1) (e) of the Act.

(3.) The tenants Ratanbai and Induben feeling aggrieved by the decree passed by the learned trial Judge preferred Appeal No. 1 of 1974 before the Appellate Bench of the Court of Small Causes at Ahmedabad. In the said appeal the conclusion reached by the learned trial Judge that Ratanbai and Induben had sub-let the premises to Anupam Automobiles was questioned. The validity of the notice served on Ratanbai and Induben was also questioned and it was submitted that in the absence of the notice having been served on original defendants Nos. 3 4 3 5 the suit was not maintainable. The learned Judges constituting the Appellate Bench repelled all these submissions made on behalf of the tenants and came to the conclusion that the trial Court had rightly held that the premises were sub-let to Anupam Automobiles and the landlord was therefore entitled to a decree under Section 13 (1) (e) of the Act. The Appellate Bench alb came to the conclusion that the suit us maintainable even in the absence of a notice to defendants Nos. 3 4 and 5. In that view the learned Judges constituting the Appellate Bench dismissed the appeal with costs. The tenants have therefore preferred this revision application under Section 29 of the Act.